Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

typoon · Jul 26, 2007, 08:33 AM

This years tour is Nuts. So many ejected for positive drug tests. Now Michael Rasmussen The one who had been wearing the Yellow Jersey has been pullout of the tour by his team and sacked. What a wild tour.

Dakarʒ · Jul 26, 2007, 08:35 AM

I think the athletes think there are two challenges going on: Winning each leg and doping without getting caught.

Sherman Homan · Jul 26, 2007, 09:36 AM

A picture is worth a thousand words:
Tour De France bosses defiant as drugs scandal threatens to destroy race

analogika · Jul 26, 2007, 09:55 AM

Since two teams have already withdrawn and most sponsors are openly talking about dropping their sponsoring contracts after this season, I think the whole thing will just completely deflate for a year or two and then slowly recover, perhaps a bit cleaner, once the sponsor pressure has been removed from the teams.

And any flag-waving nay-sayers want to defend Landis in retrospect?

Jan Ullrich is looking a complete idiot as well, for being the only one still insisting upon his innocence.

Nivag · Jul 26, 2007, 10:31 AM

no drug taking here

MacosNerd · Jul 26, 2007, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by analogika

And any flag-waving nay-sayers want to defend Landis in retrospect?

I don't see how anyone can defend him. While there were issues with the testing, these issues AFAIK are technicalities and the blood samples really do show an absurd amount of testosterone.

I think the whole biking sport is under indictment at this point and it does not look good. I cannot see how its going to recover with so many of its stars being caught red handed.

Faust · Jul 26, 2007, 03:36 PM

The whole thing is just bitterly sad. A joke. 104 years of "Tour de France" history going down the drain in such an embarassing manner.

MindFad · Jul 26, 2007, 04:02 PM

YTMND - Tour De Kart OMG

I lawled anyway.

nonhuman · Jul 26, 2007, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Faust

The whole thing is just bitterly sad. A joke. 104 years of "Tour de France" history going down the drain in such an embarassing manner.

All good things...

This too will pass...

I'm running out of relevant clichés...

Don Pickett · Jul 26, 2007, 05:31 PM

Things won't change until the UCI gets serious about doping. All they're really worried about now is keeping the sponsor money coming in.

Faust · Jul 26, 2007, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

All good things...

This too will pass...

I'm running out of relevant clichés...

Hehehe. You have forgotten one though; Life goes on ...

nonhuman · Jul 26, 2007, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by Faust

Hehehe. You have forgotten one though; Life goes on ...

Ooh. Good call.

Mrjinglesusa · Jul 26, 2007, 06:37 PM

The Tour de France is a freakin' joke these days. Does anyone actually care about this race anymore?

Faust · Jul 26, 2007, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa

The Tour de France is a freakin' joke these days. Does anyone actually care about this race anymore?

Caring is a strong word.

I used to watch the "Tour de France" because I admired these athletes' iron discipline. Now I watch it because I admire these athletes' ironic stupidity. It's amazing. Absolutely amazing.

Captain Obvious · Jul 26, 2007, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by typoon

This years tour is Nuts. What a wild tour.

ghporter · Jul 26, 2007, 10:12 PM

There are ways other than doping to increase testosterone production-at least ways that don't require the use of illegal steroids. However, in those cases, the testosterone level remains fairly high from day to day and over a long period of time. Absurdly, actual, hard work that builds muscle increases testosterone production, as does exhaustive exercise...

I have more problems with the testing regime than I care to go into, but the idea that elevated testosterone is an indicator of doping is sketchy at best. Sure, if it's massively high compared to other tests, that's a huge flag. But if it's elevated in an athlete that's in such serious training as needed for le Tour, you need to start specifying quantitative results, not just "elevated testosterone."

They tried to hang Lance just about every time he rode, and they failed. One testicle CAN produce a huge quantity of testosterone when the body is going through that kind of stressful training. So how about someone with both testicles?

OreoCookie · Jul 26, 2007, 11:01 PM

@ghporter
You have a point there: athletes have to be really careful about the medication they take (e. g. cold medicine, whatever) since some of them might show up when screening for drugs. However, I doubt it's one of those times. Legally, it's a clear-cut case: a normal human has a ratio (testosterone vs. epitestosterone) of about 1-to-1 (there are cases when it's 4-to-1 or perhaps even 8-to-1), the official limit is 4-to-1, Landis' sample showed 11-to-1. I'm sure if he had unnaturally high testosterone levels, he would have used that in his defense already.

Many athletes have been `diagnosed' with asthma, so they are allowed to take a larger amount of certain substances that would otherwise be illegal. I've also heard a former pro athlete (who studied sports at university) claim that Armstrong was allowed to take a larger amount of EPO because of his history with cancer. (I still think he won fair square since it seems that pretty much all of his opponents were also doped.) This guy claimed that people who were clean in the cycling community were the exception rather than the rule -- and judging from this year's Tour de France, he seems to be right.

I'm glad that finally doping is taken seriously as a problem and I hope that people can win based on their natural abilities and not because of the ingenuity of their doctors.

Sherman Homan · Jul 27, 2007, 07:02 AM

I hope that people can win based on their natural abilities and not because of the ingenuity of their doctors.

Theoretical question: How about Lasik eye surgery? How is that different than artifically increasing the blood's ability to absorb oxygen or increasing the amount of testoterone?

analogika · Jul 27, 2007, 07:19 AM

not doping.

""Doping in sport" is defined as "the administration to sportsmen or sportswomen, or the use by them, of pharmacological classes of doping agents or doping methods" (Council of Europe Anti-doping Convention of 16 November 1989).
Doping in sport is defined as "the administration to or use by a healthy individual ... of any agent or substance nor normally present in the body ... and/or of any physiological agent or substance ... when introduced in abnormal additional quantities and/or by an abnormal route and/or in an abnormal manner, ... with the purpose and effect of increasing artificially and in an unfair manner the performance of that individual during the period of competition" (first definition of doping adopted in 1963 by the Council of Europe Committee for Out-of-School Education)."

Sherman Homan · Jul 27, 2007, 07:38 AM

Well it is obviously not "doping" but the question was about "the ingenuity of their doctors."

analogika · Jul 27, 2007, 08:43 AM

So your question is a weaker form of asking whether doctors should be permitted to treat athletes?

Would *not* dying of appendicitis be considered a competitive advantage?

Sherman Homan · Jul 27, 2007, 10:11 AM

That is why I called it a theoretical question. Many of the issues around health and medicine seem clear, but there are blood doping techniques that substantially increase the ability to absorb oxygen. One, pumping autologous blood back into the athlete/donor, doesn't involve steroids at all. But is does depend on a doctor's ingenuity.

Eug · Jul 27, 2007, 10:22 AM

Many athletes have been `diagnosed' with asthma, so they are allowed to take a larger amount of certain substances that would otherwise be illegal. I've also heard a former pro athlete (who studied sports at university) claim that Armstrong was allowed to take a larger amount of EPO because of his history with cancer. (I still think he won fair square since it seems that pretty much all of his opponents were also doped.) This guy claimed that people who were clean in the cycling community were the exception rather than the rule -- and judging from this year's Tour de France, he seems to be right.

Armstrong only took EPO immediately after the cancer. He denies he took it during the Tour de France (although one paper claims he did for the 1999 one, based on unverifiable blood tests).

Taking EPO in 1996 or 1997 would basically be irrelevant for 1999.

OreoCookie · Jul 27, 2007, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by Sherman Homan

Theoretical question: How about Lasik eye surgery? How is that different than artifically increasing the blood's ability to absorb oxygen or increasing the amount of testoterone?

You've taken that sentence out of context, I was clearly referring to doping.

OldManMac · Jul 27, 2007, 11:31 AM

Doping in cycling is nothing new. It finally appears, however, that it's being taken more seriously within the last few years. If it were taken more seriously in other pro sports in America the sports picture would be different than it is now. The real question should be; why aren't other athletes tested as much as pro cyclists. The answer, IMO; there's much more money involved and and sponsors would have to stop turning a blind eye.

OldManMac · Jul 27, 2007, 11:31 AM

dp; sometimes this forum is so damn slow.

natnabour · Jul 27, 2007, 01:54 PM

Perhaps I'm being naive here...and I don't know too much about the Tour de France to really have a say in this - BUT -

I find it ridiculous and embarrassing to hear that an athlete has been pulled from the race every other day, or to hear that a certain team has stopped competing. It's too much unnecessary drama, IMO. Why not let the race go on, let the athletes do their job, and THEN bring it up? I dunno..

I would think since Lance's spectacle, that they'd screen all athletes before the race and do random screenings during the race to ensure no foul play. Perhaps that IS what they do, not very sure..

Eug · Jul 27, 2007, 02:00 PM

Actually, the race leader was pulled by his own country, not the Tour de France.

OldManMac · Jul 27, 2007, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by natnabour

Perhaps I'm being naive here...and I don't know too much about the Tour de France to really have a say in this - BUT -

I find it ridiculous and embarrassing to hear that an athlete has been pulled from the race every other day, or to hear that a certain team has stopped competing. It's too much unnecessary drama, IMO. Why not let the race go on, let the athletes do their job, and THEN bring it up? I dunno..

I would think since Lance's spectacle, that they'd screen all athletes before the race and do random screenings during the race to ensure no foul play. Perhaps that IS what they do, not very sure..

They do random and regular drug tests at the Tour and during the year. ESPN Page 2 - Caple: Tour de Farce

Eug · Jul 28, 2007, 07:25 AM

villalobos · Jul 28, 2007, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

Actually, the race leader was pulled by his own country, not the Tour de France.

Actually it was his team not his country.

It seems that Contador was also involved in some doping controversy in 2005 but unlike other players was not suspended. He might not finish the race either.
As mentioned earlier, it would be interesting to see the other major sports being as serious as biking about doping...

TETENAL · Jul 28, 2007, 11:05 AM

Sprinting Through the Barriers: The Fastest Man on No Legs - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

analogika · Jul 28, 2007, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by villalobos

As mentioned earlier, it would be interesting to see the other major sports being as serious as biking about doping...

Actually, they are...

Doping tests in cycling have been a complete farce until this season's Tour.

From what I remember of a documentary I watched last week or so, cyclists routinely had an almost two-hour window between breakfast (and subsequent testing) and the actual start of the race in which they were not under observation. And it was absolutely no problem to just "disappear" for a while just after the race. These were due to the way these bike races are structured.

There was absolutely no rigorously enforced testing up until now, and if one of the riders goes on record in an interview claiming that he'd like to see other sports held to the same standards as cycling, and that the positive tests are proof of the effectiveness of doping screening during the Tour, then that's downright cynical in light of the fact that for some reason, cyclists are being dropped left and right on this tour, after only the odd positive over the past decades.

Do you really want to believe they just started systematically doping this year?

villalobos · Jul 28, 2007, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by analogika

Actually, they are...

Doping tests in cycling have been a complete farce until this season's Tour.

You mean like baseball? (cue B. Bonds)
I know about the tour, don't be patronizing, bonhomme.

analogika · Jul 28, 2007, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by villalobos

You mean like baseball? (cue B. Bonds)

Baseball? B. Bonds?

ghporter · Jul 28, 2007, 07:28 PM

Barry Bonds has supposedly (probably) diluted his actual accomplishments by doping himself, either with steroids or stuff that is similar enough to be the same thing. He's one of the reasons a lot of baseball fans are asking for records and stats from recent years to have asterisks noting when the record holder was suspected of being "impure."

F-ing around with baseball is just WRONG. Anyone who DOES screw around with "enhancements" deserves to be permanently banned from the game, from endorsements, and even being able to watch the game on TV. F-ing idiots.